ITV

Tag: RIO

  • TDSAT wants to hear all MSOs on common date for RIOs, lists matter for 30 October

    TDSAT wants to hear all MSOs on common date for RIOs, lists matter for 30 October

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT) today issued notice to multi-system operators Siti Cable and Den Networks to file their viewpoint on a petition by Hathway Cable & Datacom seeking a common date for implementation of reference interconnect order (RIO) agreements.

     

    The date suggested by Hathway was 1 October, but Star India against whom the application had been filed argued that the matter had already been settled in the judgment of the Tribunal on 25 September in the Taj TV case.

     

    However, chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh fixed the matter for further hearing on 30 October, while at the same time calling upon other MSOs to implead themselves in the matter so that it could be resolved.

     

    After a fiery battle that lasted just over seven months, Hathway and Star India had last month been directed to execute an interconnect agreement based on Star’s Reference Interconnect Offer for Star general entertainment channels and Star Sports channels by 30 September.

     

    The Tribunal had also said Zee would also execute the RIO by 30 September in case it had not so far countersigned the RIO sent to it duly signed on behalf of Hathway.

     

    Before parting with the case, the Tribunal said it was “constrained to observe that the TRAI has failed to examine the rates quoted in the RIO submitted before it from the point of view indicated above. In an earlier judgment [Petitions nos.836(C)/2012 & 382(C)/2011 – Dish TV India. Ltd. Vs. ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd.], we had asked the TRAI to pay attention to this aspect of the matter but unfortunately our observations failed to receive due attention. We reiterate the urgent need for TRAI to examine the RIOs submitted to it, especially the rates quoted by broadcasters and MSOs, to make these serve the purpose as intended in the regulations.”

     

    The Tribunal “categorically rejected” the submission made on behalf of the broadcasters that publication of their RIO on their websites satisfies the condition to act non-discriminatingly. However it added that though this may be the ideal, it can never be accepted as valid having regard to the way RIOs are being framed by the broadcasters and the MSOs at present. “In the state in which we find the RIOs at present, this argument becomes a ploy to turn the RIO into a coercive tool and a threat to the seeker of the TV channels, and it undermines the essence of the regulations, which is to promote healthy competition by providing a level playing ground”, the Tribunal added.  

  • Star India on watch as Hathway implements RIO TDSAT order

    Star India on watch as Hathway implements RIO TDSAT order

    MUMBAI: The seven month long battle between multisystem operator (MSO) Hathway Cable and Datacom on one hand and Star India and Taj Television on the other, finally ended last week, with the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) directing Hathway to execute an interconnect agreement based on Star’s Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO). 

     

    The TDSAT had directed the two to sign the interconnect agreement in its current form and approach the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in case of any objections with parts of the RIO. “We have signed the RIO in its current form and have sent it to Star,” informs Hathway Cable and Datacom MD and CEO Jagdish Kumar.

     

    But, having said this, Star still seems to have some concerns. “As of today, the Star channels have been dropped on Hathway in Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata and Ahmedabad. So while channels like Star Movies, Star World have been switched off from the Mumbai headend, in Ahmedabad, except Star Plus and Star Movies, all the other channels from the network have been dropped,” says a industry source close to the development.

     

    According to the same source, Hathway, fundamentally has been offering less channels at a higher price to consumers, as compared to the other MSOs or DTH operators in the same market.

     

    “Currently, the MSO has shown a consistent behaviour and pattern of taking on the broadcasters. It has been dropping channels and moving them to a la carte and has been depriving a significant number of consumers of good content,” he further adds.

     

    The network is looking forward to the way the changes will be communicated by the MSO to the customers. “The consumers will have to call the MSO and find out how they can subscribe to the channels as it is no longer available in the packs. And so communication is crucial,” the source informs. 

     

    According to Hathway’s Kumar, with the court ordering the MSO to follow procedures from 1 October, it is doing everything they can to inform their subscribers.  “We are using various means of communication. So while the first thing we are doing is communicating to our local cable operators, we have also put tickers on our channels, informing consumers that Star channels will be available on a la carte, henceforth. This apart, all the MSOs together are coming up with a press release in order to inform the consumers about the change,” says Kumar.

     

    Kumar says, that Hathway will continue to inform its LCOs and subscribers, even after the initial phase.

     

    Hathway will be providing non-sports channels of Star at Rs 10 each, and sports channels for Rs 20 to its consumers.

     

     The MSO believes it can still make a good profit margin at these rates, even though this looks challenging, considering the range of RIO pricing for the Star package is from 52 paisa for Channel V to Rs 17.39 for Star Sports2 and Rs 2.36 for Star World.

     

    “But we didn’t want to confuse our customers with so many price points, and so came up with this plan. So while we expect to make a good margin for Channel V, the margin for Star Plus which is for Rs 9 will be small. But overall, we hope to make a good margin,” ends Kumar. 

  • Star India commits to renew agreements with MSOs only on basis of RIO, hearing concludes

    Star India commits to renew agreements with MSOs only on basis of RIO, hearing concludes

    NEW DELHI: Judgment was reserved today by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) in the ‘deep-rooted’ dispute between Hathway and Taj TV, after the hearing that commenced on 25 August and continued on a day-to-day basis.

     

    Before the Tribunal reserved its order, Star India filed an affidavit in which it said it would ‘henceforth’ enter into agreements under the Reference Interconnect Order on a year-to-year basis with all multi-system operators.

     

    It said the RIO would commence three months after the expiry of the erstwhile agreement and would only be on the basis of a published RIO.

     

    It also said it will sign any new agreement on cost per subscriber basis with MSOs operating at national level.

     

    However, it listed eight MSOs working at regional or state level with which it already has CPS agreements and said these will continue for the term for which they are valid and thus last the full term.

     

    The eight MSOs are Inspire Infotech of Delhi, Novabase Digital Entertainment of Delhi, E-Infrastructure and Entertainment, Bangalore, Satellite Channels, Poona Cables Systems and Services of Pune, Sky Channel of Delhi, Home Cable Networks of Chittore District in Andhra Pradesh and City TV of Coimbatore.

     

    In reply to certain queries by the Tribunal in reference to the statement made in paragraph-3 of the affidavit, Star India counsel Saikrishna on instructions received from duly authorised officers present in court stated that in DAS notified areas, any new interconnect agreement with any MSOs operating under a national license or a regional/local license would only be on the basis of the RIO of M/s Star India Pvt. Ltd. and it would not enter into any interconnect agreement in the DAS areas with anyone on fixed fee or on CPS basis for a period of one year.

     

    Primarily, the Tribunal would have to decide on two matters: the first is an interpretation of the date of renewal under Clause 5(16) of the Telecom (Digital Addressable Systems) Interconnect Regulations relating to renewal of agreements, and the other is about the rates according to the arguments put forth by the various parties.

     

    Earlier, counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia who had been asked by TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh to assist the Tribunal in clarifying certain issues said the Regulations were clear that if certain channels were provided to one MSO, they had to be provided to any other MSO that asked for them. However, this did not mean that the terms would be the same for all MSOs.

     

    Furthermore, even if channels were put in bouquets, the rates could not be the same as some were regional channels meant for specific areas and others were national channels and the charges would depend on eyeballs. Hence, the negotiation may differ from region to region. But this also meant creation of RIO agreements for every region depending on number of eyeballs.

     

    He also claimed that the Interconnect Regulations allowed him to change the terms and conditions from time to time.

     

    But he was categorical that a RIO could not be thrust upon him as it was only an offer. Clause 5(10) provides the remedy in case the broadcaster turns down a RIO agreement.

     

    He said that the ‘must carry; clause did not mean automatically that the broadcaster will be paid for every channel he beams. It would depend to the number of channels that the subscriber decides to take.

     

    During the hearing, the Tribunal heard various counsel on behalf of Taj TV and Zee TV, Star India, Hathway, Bhaskar (MSO) from Jabalpur and Scod, an MSO from Mumbai and Navi Mumbai.

     

    When listing the case for 25 August, the Tribunal had said: “Unfortunately, the dispute between the two sides is playing out in highly aggressive way and one may add in a rather unpleasant manner. It seems to be affecting a large number of people in viewing their favourite TV channels. The disputants themselves are approaching the Tribunal on a weekly basis complaining against the actions of each other and seeking some interim directions of the Tribunal consuming a lot of time on arguments on miscellaneous applications.”

     

    The Tribunal noted that both sides had assured that they would avoid issuing the offensive advertisements against each other.

     

    In the order last month, the Tribunal directed Taj TV to file their respective replies in petitions nos.319(C) of 2014 and 47(C) of 2014 and asked Hathway to file its rejoinder.

     

    The Tribunal noted that the dispute has arisen at a stage when the earlier fixed fee agreement between the parties has come to end and they are unable to come to agreed terms for a fresh agreement and under the circumstances the MSO has no option but to take the broadcasters’ channels on their RIO terms.

  • MSOs prepared to accept RIO if broadcasters assure parity, MSOs’ counsel tell TDSAT

    MSOs prepared to accept RIO if broadcasters assure parity, MSOs’ counsel tell TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: An agreement under reference interconnect offer (RIO) is acceptable if there is parity to all, Hathway counsel Arun Kathpalia and Bhaskar Networks counsel Navin Chawla told the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) in the cases linked to Taj TV signals for Zee and Turner and Star India’s signals to Hathway and other multi-system operators (MSOs).

     

    Earlier, both Star India counsel Rakesh Dwivedi, on behalf of the case against Hathway and counsel Amit Sibal appearing on behalf of Star India in the petition by Bhaskar Networks of Jabalpur indicated that they were prepared to give affidavits with the assurance of parity.

     

    However, counsel were divided on when the agreements should commence and wanted the Tribunal to decide the matter in the light of clause 5(16) of the DAS interconnect regulations.

     

    Dwivedi said that since the last agreement ended in June, any agreement will only be till June irrespective of the date when it commences. He said there had been delay only on the part of Hathway in proceeding with the negotiations. Sibal also said there could be no concession on the date.

     

    Kathpalia however said that the agreement will be for one year from the date it commences. However, he said this was subject to the interpretation given by the Tribunal to clause 5(16).

     

    At one stage, Kathpalia argued that Star India wanted to give RIO agreement to all MSOs whereas Hathway had been negotiating on the basis of cost per subscriber (CPS).

     

    Referring to Star Sports’ feed to Bhaskar, Sibal said that MediaPro wrote to all MSOs asking them to approach the broadcasters individually. Star India had on 19 May written to Bhaskar to negotiate for a new agreement, but had not mentioned RIO since clause 5(3) provides for negotiations or RIO.

     

    He said Bhaskar did not respond till 2 July when Star India disconnected the signals and insisted that the broadcaster should have given one month’s notice. A fresh notice was given on 1 August for terminating channels.

     

    Siblal said Bhaskar’s case appeared to be that the rate of Rs 39 for the sports channel was not reasonable. He said this figure cannot be a benchmark as it was not the basis for negotiation. 

     

    At one stage, Justice Aftab Alam said RIO defines the parameters of the limitation of the figure. Member Kuldeep Singh asked why MSOs should have any objection if there was no discrimination in the RIO.

  • Star and Zee not conspiring to drive Hathway out of business: Star India counsel Rakesh Dwivedi

    Star and Zee not conspiring to drive Hathway out of business: Star India counsel Rakesh Dwivedi

    NEW DELHI: Admitting that Star India and Zee Turner had created MediaPro, Star counsel Rakesh Dwivedi said that the arrangement had been dismantled and “MediaPro is dead in the sense that it is no longer an authorised agent of Star India.”

     

    Arguing before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in the cases linked to Taj TV signals for Turner and Zee TV and Star India signals to Hathway and other multi-system operators, Dwivedi said that Star had no stake in Den Networks or Zee and had no problems with Siticable.

     

    Referring to the Regulations which refer to being non-discriminatory and reasonable, he said the petitioners (Hathway and the other MSOs) had not been able to show how Star India was discriminatory.

     

    In any case, he said Star India was treating all MSOs at par, adding that there was no challenge to the reasonableness of the Reference Interconnect Offer agreement. He said it was also incorrect to say that the RIO was not in consonance with market rates.

     

    He also pointed out that on the one hand Star India had been accused of only offering packages and not giving the channels on a la carte, the petitioners themselves then bundled some channels into various packages.

     

    He quoted both the Regulations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Competition Commission of India to show that MSOs hold a more dominant position in the cable industry.  

     

    Dwivedi also said that the previous agreement with MediaPro cannot form the basis of the agreement with Hathway or other MSOs as “they proceed on different methodologies.”

     

    He again denied the charge that Star and Zee were conspiring with other MSOs to drive the petitioner MSOs out of business.   

  • Broadcaster or distributor has to give reasons for differential rates for different MSOs: Naveen Chawla

    Broadcaster or distributor has to give reasons for differential rates for different MSOs: Naveen Chawla

    NEW DELHI: While stressing that negotiated settlements had also been provided for in the regulations other than an agreement under the Reference Interconnect Order (RIO), two multi system operators (MSOs) apart from Hathway Cable & Datacom contended today that Star had failed to give reasons for having different rates for them as compared to Den or Siticable.

     

    Naveen Chawla, counsel for MSO Bhaskar, which operates in Jabalpur and Scoda which operates in Navi Mumbai and Mumbai, said his contention was for a reasonable and non-discriminatory rates and he was not challenging the concept of RIO.

     

    He said according to Clauses 3(1) and 3(2) of the Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable) Interconnection (Digital Addressable System) Regulations 2012 were clear that any agreement has to be reasonable and non-discriminatory and all MSOs will be treated equally.  In fact, the provision 3(2) clearly indicated that an RIO that is discriminatory and unreasonable is not acceptable.

     

    ‘Reasonable’ can mean the rate provided by law or the rate that is negotiated with a client in keeping with market forces.  Thus, RIO itself has to be reasonable and in relation to market conditions, Chawla said in the ongoing hearing before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) in the cases linked to Star signals for Turner and Zee TV.

     

    A RIO may be a la carte or bouquet, but has to be linked to the subscriber, he said. He also said it was the responsibility of the broadcaster and not the MSO under Clause 3(3) to provide RIO agreements or to give reasons within 60 days for any demands.

     

    Clause 4 was clear that it was the broadcaster who had to submit the RIO or agreement to the authorities and also publish it on its website.

     

    Stressing that his main contention was that the RIO agreement given to him by Star was unreasonable and discriminatory, he said TDSAT had in 2006 held that there should be parity in the rates charged and broadcasters have to give reasons in case the rates are different.

     

    Meanwhile, Chawla quoted from a judgment of TDSAT of August 2005 in which the Tribunal had said that an MSO cannot be an agent of the broadcaster and thus not a competitor to other MSOs, and this view had been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. He quoted other judgments to say that broadcasters cannot create exclusivity or monopoly of particular MSOs as that would be discriminatory.

     

    He said the only way to judge whether an agreement was not discriminatory or unreasonable was to go by the previous judgment between the parties.

  • RIO is a non-discriminatory agreement between parties under DAS: Taj

    RIO is a non-discriminatory agreement between parties under DAS: Taj

    NEW DELHI: On the third day of the Hathway Cable & Datacom and Taj Television hearing in the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), Taj Television described agreements under the Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) as ‘a uniform, non-discriminatory mechanism which ensures an agreement between parties.’

     

    Taj Counsel Pratibha Singh also told the TDSAT that RIO was a kind of wholesale rate in the scheme of digital addressable system (DAS). According to her, if no agreement was reached during negotiations, then the payment for TV channels in DAS areas would be fixed as specified in the RIO.

     

    “It is a default programme on a computer – if there is nothing by way of agreement, then there is RIO,” she said.

     

    In the ongoing hearing before the Tribunal in the cases linked to Taj TV, she said that it was also clear that the rates under DAS were 35 per cent of those under analogue, which was later raised to 42 per cent.

     

    Referring to an earlier case in TDSAT, Singh said that though the Quality of Service regulations under DAS tended to curtail freedom, they had protected the consumer until there was adequate competition.

     

    The Telecom (Broadcasting and cable Services) Interconnect (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations 2012 was clear in section 5(16) that negotiations have to be held.

     

    She reiterated that Hathway had been told on 26 June through a letter that since the negotiations had failed, Taj TV was forwarding a signed RIO. Hathway had also been told that they would be according to RIO if they sent a subscriber report.

     

    She alleged that the multi system operator (MSO) had not reduced the prices of the packages even after receiving the RIO.

     

    She also said that Hathway had failed to respond to the letter sent on 26 June until Taj TV stopped the signals from 1 August. “After failed negotiations, Hathway as late as 18 August claimed that Taj TV was not negotiating despite having admitted earlier that negotiations had been held,” she clarified.

       

    She said it was unfortunate that MSOs and local cable operators felt that they did most of the work and their share should be larger. “They overlook the fact that the broadcaster pays for content, spectrum, government taxes, journalists and producers and so on,” she concluded.

  • RIO forms basis for final deal, agree Taj and Hathway

    RIO forms basis for final deal, agree Taj and Hathway

    NEW DELHI: Taj Television contended before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal today that though initial signals can be given by the broadcaster or distributor to the multi system operator initially on the basis of mutual negotiation, but this ultimately has to translate into an agreement under the Reference Interconnection Offer (RIO).

     

    Responding to an argument by Taj Television that the RIO had to be signed within 30 days, counsel for Hathway said that the date limit applies to modifications in existing RIO agreements, but the deal between Taj and Hathway had to be a new one since MediaPro had stopped distribution of Zee TV and Turner channels.

     

    Earlier, the Tribunal had fixed for final disposal from 25 August the ‘deep-rooted’ dispute between Hathway and Taj, noting that this would require interpretation of certain clauses of some of the statutory regulations.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh had said: ‘Unfortunately, the dispute between the two sides is playing out in highly aggressive way and one may add in a rather unpleasant manner. It seems to be affecting a large number of people in viewing their favourite TV channels. The disputants themselves are approaching the Tribunal on a weekly basis complaining against the actions of each other and seeking some interim directions of the Tribunal consuming a lot of time on arguments on miscellaneous applications.  It is, therefore, in the larger interest to finally dispose of these cases after hearing all sides at an early date.”

     

    The Tribunal noted that the dispute has arisen at a stage when the earlier fixed fee agreement between the parties has come to end and they are unable to come to agreed terms for a fresh agreement and under the circumstances the MSO has no option but to take the broadcasters’ channels on their RIO terms.

     

    Hathway counsel Arun Kathpalia who concluded his initial arguments today said Hathway has only 10 per cent of the total collections that Taj Television makes from different MSOs. Hathway was paying Rs 85 crore for all channels including Turner (while the figure excluding Turner was Rs 62 crore).

     

    He also said that Hathway had been wrongly accused of making changes in the composition of the packages. In any case, the MSO was not offering the channels on a standalone basis and so the provision under the Quality of Services regulations did not apply to them.

     

    When talks between the two parties failed, he said the RIO was forwarded on 25 January and was to be effective from February.

     

    However,Star Sports Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi said the RIO had been accepted by Hathway in November last year which was revised by Hathway in January this year. Dwivedi wanted to know why the RIO should be made effective from February 2014 when the Subscriber Register had been supplied by Hathway in December last year.  Furthermore, no facts had been shown by Hathway to show the end of pleadings.

    Further arguments will continue tomorrow with counsel for Star expected to conclude his arguments and Hathway responding to them.

  • Hathway can bundle Star channels: TDSAT

    Hathway can bundle Star channels: TDSAT

    MUMBAI: The Star India and Hathway Cable & Datacom case regarding the former’s various channels has got an interim relief from the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). 

     

    As per the order passed on 28 July, TDSAT has asked both Hathway and Star India to enter into cost per subscriber (CPS) deals, starting August. According to this deal, the multi system operator (MSO) will pay Rs 27 per subscriber to the broadcaster for its entire bouquet, which includes entertainment and sports.

     

    It can be noted that earlier Hathway had two separate deals with the broadcaster- one for its sports channels handled separately and the other for the entertainment channels, which was handled by the now dissolved joint venture MediaPro.

     

    The Rs 27 CPS deal is a mid way arrangement proposed by TDSAT as against Hathway’s demand for Rs 22 per subscriber deal and Star’s Rs 31 per subscriber deal.  This means that the MSO has to pay an additional amount for the sports channels now, on a set top box deal, as compared to the RIO deal earlier.

     

    In its interim order, TDSAT has also clarified that Hathway has all the right to bundle the channels the way it feels right. However, the MSO will have to include at least one channel in one/any bouquets that it offers to its subscribers. 

     

    The issue had gained magnitude when Hathway decided to remove Star Sports channels from its base pack to create a separate sports pack and also provide them a-la-carte. The broadcaster objected to this move and took the MSO to the court.

     

    Meanwhile, the court has asked Hathway to clear its dues from April to July this year. This can be calculated at Rs 23 per subscriber for its entertainment channels and RIO for its sports channels together. While Star claims that this amounts to a total of Rs 27 crore, according to Hathway officials, the price is still being worked out. The total amount has to be paid by 30 August. A Hathway official says, “We are disappointed with this particular point as we believe that Rs 23 is much higher than the amount we would have actually paid to Star India as per the agreement between Star and Zee for price sharing after the split of MediaPro.”

     

    A source from Star India says, “Hathway was not paying us because of lack of clarity in the payment deals of sports and entertainment together. With this order, the integrated CPS has been recognised.”

     

    However, both parties agree that this case cannot be taken as a basis for future deals with others. According to officials from both Hathway and Star, the Rs 27 CPS deal cannot be applied to other distribution platform operators.

     

    The case will next be heard on 11 August.

  • DishTV to approach TRAI on Star Sports 2

    DishTV to approach TRAI on Star Sports 2

    MUMBAI: For quite some time India’s largest DTH platform Dish TV has wanted to carry Star’s new sports channel launched earlier this year, Star Sports 2 as part of its service. But this has not happened. 

    Dish TV says it has not signed the RIO as it has several terms it objected to. It moved the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for grievance redressal. 

    The interim order on the case came out late today stating that the question of validity of the terms of an RIO need to be first examined by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) under clause 13.3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnect Regulations (2004).

    One of the terms that Dish TV has been disputing is regarding ‘Remote access (e.g. through dial up or otherwise) to the Affiliate’s DTH platform (information related to subscribers) shall be provided to the Company in order to permit the Company to verify the subscriber numbers.’

    As per this term, Star Sports wanted access to its subscribers’ details on Dish TV. To this, the tribunal stated that this term is contrary to a previous opinion of TRAI that was upheld by the TDSAT.

    After hearing this, the Star Sports counsel said that his client won’t insist on incorporating this term in its RIO but the TDSAT said in a similar situation had arose before and therefore this clause may not have found mention in the RIO.

    “In so far as the other disputed terms and conditions are concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to sign the interconnect agreement, including the disputed terms and conditions without prejudice to its rights and contentions and keeping its option open to seek its remedies,” reads the TDSAT order. 

    Dish now has two options before it – either sign the RIO, comply with the terms and take the channel or else not take the channel. Star Sports says that if it wants to take it to the TRAI, it has to sign the RIO including the above mentioned one. The TDSAT has requested the regulator to have its say on it within six weeks from the date of filing.

    According to Dish TV, there are about 10 to 12 such terms that they object to and will be writing to the TRAI about in the first half of next week. “We do expect the TRAI will issue a direction to the broadcaster to amend clauses in the RIO. If Star Sports still does not adhere to the TRAI’s directions we will certainly revert to the tribunal to point out the recalcitrance again,” says Dish TV CEO R C Venkateish.

    Star Sports officials, on the other hand, are also quite clear that Dish TV will have to sign the RIO if it wants the channel. “Despite the fact that the disputed terms in the RIO, this stand of the broadcaster that I have to sign the RIO before approaching the TRAI is indicative of their attitude towards the law of the land,” said Venkateish.

    It is up to the regulator now to decide whether the terms in the RIO fit with the regulations.